General Discussion

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)

238. Not according to Rachel or common sense

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 10:42 AM

Jul 2013

First, Martin's friend Rachel was on the phone with him at the time of the encounter. Martin was not going looking for him, he was trying to lose him which is why he ran in the first place. According to her it was Zimmerman who caught up to Martin at some point and accosted him.

Further, he was wearing his headset for his phone, was connected to the phone call with Rachel as her phone logs attest and he had his phone in his hand. Both his headset and phone were found on the grass next to his body. Considering this physical and documented evidence it is not reasonable to believe Liar Zimmerman when he claimed that Martin attacked him especially since he changed his story about that... first he said that Martin sprang out from nearby bushes and attacked him, then when discovering there was not anything even resembling a bush anywhere near the area he changed his story to Martin just appeared up close to him out of nowhere, they exchanged words, and then Martin punched him.

Given the physical and documented evidence as well as Zimmerman lying about how they encountered each other telling two different stories about that it is not reasonable to believe that it was Martin who somehow decided to go back and confront Zimmerman after running away from him but that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin in the unaccounted for two minutes he claimed he was walking back to his car merely steps away which couldn't have taken more than a few seconds (and certainly not two minutes) and accosted Martin when he caught up to him just as Rachel said.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

260 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wow! It sounds like the JUDGE, not the jury, may have freed Zimmerman. [View all] Kablooie Jul 2013 OP

WOW! is right. That omission in the instructions to the jury is criminal snappyturtle Jul 2013 #1

mis-trial? leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #9

Doesn't work that way... Pelican Jul 2013 #16

So will you be rooting for Dunn this fall? Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #23

I certainly hope... Pelican Jul 2013 #57

Is anyone here surprised by this response? Dunn's not getting justice? Wow! Anansi1171 Jul 2013 #177

There ya go... Pelican Jul 2013 #184

Yup, that's why now that we have confirmation that OJ killed Nicole, he can't be retried tavalon Jul 2013 #174

How do we have confirmation that OJ killed Nicole? loudsue Jul 2013 #235

Last month Kaeto Kailen tavalon Jul 2013 #247

Nope. A verdict of "Not Guilty" ends the matter. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #17

There have been cases legally reopedn and retried Blackford Jul 2013 #45

Yeah, didn't Bernhard Goetz get convicted on his third trial? nt freedom fighter jh Jul 2013 #191

Goetz had one criminal trial. nsd Jul 2013 #249

They could bring you up on a different set of charges. caseymoz Jul 2013 #207

Good thought donnasgirl Jul 2013 #39

The only way a mistrial can be declared is if there is found to be jury misconduct... Spazito Jul 2013 #47

What about this route? Half-Century Man Jul 2013 #87

Won't work ExCop-LawStudent Jul 2013 #96

Too damn bad. Half-Century Man Jul 2013 #103

You can try anything ExCop-LawStudent Jul 2013 #130

He can be tried in a civil court, and he can't take the Fifth. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #196

The Judge's ruling would not be considered judicial misconduct... Spazito Jul 2013 #108

Thanks for the skinny Half-Century Man Jul 2013 #166

You're welcome! n/t Spazito Jul 2013 #167

No, but if the judge committed gross malfeasance she can be totodeinhere Jul 2013 #118

Yes, the instructions required the jury to be mind readers to come up with a "guilty" verdict Warpy Jul 2013 #170

How would the mistrial thing-ee be declared? truedelphi Jul 2013 #251

No, once acquitted, it isn't reversible. X_Digger Jul 2013 #252

Because the judge didn't tell them the legal standard for self defense Warpy Jul 2013 #254

Jimmy's daddy was not a judge naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #253

"That omission in the instructions to the jury is criminal" bvar22 Jul 2013 #206

I wonder if that could be considered a reversible error. 11 Bravo Jul 2013 #2

No naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #5

OJ knows that too PatrynXX Jul 2013 #109

Even if it were anomiep Jul 2013 #61

The judge was in the tank for the prosecution. rl6214 Jul 2013 #3

Which is why the defense won. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #11

You mispelled "defense" -eom gcomeau Jul 2013 #27

When people donnasgirl Jul 2013 #58

Whoosh... see post 71. -eom gcomeau Jul 2013 #72

My head donnasgirl Jul 2013 #90

I am so sorry for your loss. premium Jul 2013 #100

Thank you donnasgirl Jul 2013 #113

So sorry vankuria Jul 2013 #149

You replied to the wrong post, premium Jul 2013 #151

Oops! vankuria Jul 2013 #211

I'm so sorry about your dog CitizenLeft Jul 2013 #102

Thank you donnasgirl Jul 2013 #114

That's the worst thing about dogs warrant46 Jul 2013 #117

sorry for your loss sending hugs your way skeewee08 Jul 2013 #175

I am sorry for your loss Gothmog Jul 2013 #127

I'm very sorry about your pal. reusrename Jul 2013 #146

I want to thank you all donnasgirl Jul 2013 #180

So sad to hear about your loss.... People need to stop fighting with each other and start midnight Jul 2013 #197

not if colgate is English, Canadian, Australian treestar Jul 2013 #62

They spell defense... gcomeau Jul 2013 #71

eh? SammyWinstonJack Jul 2013 #82

HUH? PSzymeczek Jul 2013 #115

Please explain YarnAddict Jul 2013 #195

Florida seems to have a low conviction rate compared to other large states. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #199

And the prosecution was in the tank for the defense. Anansi1171 Jul 2013 #178

Sounds like a mistrial to me... TheProgressive Jul 2013 #4

Nope. Zimmerman can never be tried for the same crimes again. Lochloosa Jul 2013 #8

I am well aware of double jeopardy. TheProgressive Jul 2013 #10

I'm not sure you know what mistrial means then. ag_dude Jul 2013 #31

Mistrial: A trial rendered invalid through an error in the proceedings. TheProgressive Jul 2013 #40

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #44

There was a time when Duers did not find it necessary to insult fellow posters. TheProgressive Jul 2013 #65

Yes, there was. Igel Jul 2013 #124

Dude, it's okay to be wrong. You can admit it. Dawgs Jul 2013 #75

Exactly - and since this trial can't be rendered invalid by that, there will be no mistrial. n/t whopis01 Jul 2013 #133

Where and how are judges held accountable? marions ghost Jul 2013 #33

The state bar can sanction her. But you are right. It is seldom done. n/t totodeinhere Jul 2013 #121

Yes, she can be sanctioned for it and I hope she is. But that won't totodeinhere Jul 2013 #119

And the problem here is that if our justice system fails us, "Street justice" will happen more... cascadiance Jul 2013 #41

I disagree and I'll tell you why. 60 years ago there never would have been a trail. Lochloosa Jul 2013 #105

+1 n/t LarryNM Jul 2013 #226

Not in Florida. Control-Z Jul 2013 #107

There is a possibility of trying him for violation of TM's civil rights. Lochloosa Jul 2013 #152

There is probably a very, very slim chance that the DoJ will file civil rights charges. premium Jul 2013 #160

Nope, trial is already over premium Jul 2013 #14

I watched the coverage of this case on MSNBC senseandsensibility Jul 2013 #6

That is so messed up! City Lights Jul 2013 #7

Here is the applicable FL statute Lurks Often Jul 2013 #12

Isn't Zimmerman's uncle a judge in Florida who works with that police dept? DonRedwood Jul 2013 #13

No. George Zimmerman�s uncle is a Deputy Sheriff in Orange County, California GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #21

Ah! Thanks for that. I've been telling my friends that his father was truth2power Jul 2013 #76

His daddy was FarPoint Jul 2013 #208

WOW is right.... fadedrose Jul 2013 #15

I said it yesterday nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #18

****BINGO**** The judge ROYALLY SCREWED UP!! Not only that but they weren't allowed to even uponit7771 Jul 2013 #19

I'm telling you JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #24

Prosecution wasn't arguing negligence Morganfleeman Jul 2013 #26

thx uponit7771 Jul 2013 #138

I read that article and it got me to thinking... Spazito Jul 2013 #20

That's not true at all naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #37

No, they did not in terms of evidence, not in terms of testimony... Spazito Jul 2013 #43

so you want them to consider non-evidence? naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #46

It was only non-evidence because the Judge ruled it inadmissible... Spazito Jul 2013 #51

I did read it, naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #55

Yes, in essence, it is. If it is not in the jury instructions on what to consider... Spazito Jul 2013 #60

Betcha JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #22

This is news? We've been discussing that all along, with the relevant statute. X_Digger Jul 2013 #25

Correct Morganfleeman Jul 2013 #38

Well, no, in that case, it would be during the commission of a crime X_Digger Jul 2013 #56

Change the hypothetical to a simple assault onenote Jul 2013 #139

FAIL. Muggers don't ever get a free pass on killing their victims, no matter how hard they fight bac kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #98

2b is relevant, as well. pintobean Jul 2013 #50

Not to open up a can of SYG worms here, but it seems like the language about withdrawl in 2b... JVS Jul 2013 #78

Oops, I didn't see your post before I posted mine. JVS Jul 2013 #73

No worries. X_Digger Jul 2013 #83

o gawd... Whisp Jul 2013 #28

This is true? Xyzse Jul 2013 #29

Because following someone is not a provocation LittleBlue Jul 2013 #30

I would call it stalking and not following. kidgie Jul 2013 #88

The fact that you can call it stalking doesn't mean the judge can ignore the fact onenote Jul 2013 #134

Stalking someone doesn't give you legal right to beat them LittleBlue Jul 2013 #144

If someone is behaving in a menacing manner you have a right to defend yourself. reusrename Jul 2013 #157

We don't know that he behaved in a menacing manner LittleBlue Jul 2013 #159

It's always been this way. reusrename Jul 2013 #169

Following someone does not satisfy the definition of assault LittleBlue Jul 2013 #173

You've repeated exactly what I said in my post. reusrename Jul 2013 #185

The jury didn't think so LittleBlue Jul 2013 #192

Not true. reusrename Jul 2013 #194

You have a right to protect yourself. kidgie Jul 2013 #161

Zimmerman, by his own admission, also negelected to tell Martin he was neighborhood watch SirRevolutionary Jul 2013 #164

Trayvon did not know Zim was armed LittleBlue Jul 2013 #176

How is it not realistic? It is not unheard of a person trying to get the weapon out somebodies hand. kidgie Jul 2013 #181

The prosecution had a year and a half to prove. clffrdjk Jul 2013 #201

The only one person that could answer that is dead. kidgie Jul 2013 #213

I don't have any evidence clffrdjk Jul 2013 #217

The prosecution was a big failure. kidgie Jul 2013 #223

Your sentences are out of sync. Stalker and Stalkee are being confused. Tigress DEM Jul 2013 #233

This message was self-deleted by its author proverbialwisdom Jul 2013 #162

The people claiming following isn't a provocation JoeyT Jul 2013 #183

Not true Chico Man Jul 2013 #186

so if someone targeted, stalked and killed one of your loved ones Skittles Jul 2013 #202

The fact that the jury CHOSE to accept those terms means they're STOOPID. valerief Jul 2013 #32

I would not go that far. It is not reasonable to expect the jury to understand the complicated totodeinhere Jul 2013 #122

No. The buck stops with the jury. It's time we took responsibility for our criminal legislators shit valerief Jul 2013 #172

"Florida law states..." jmg257 Jul 2013 #34

That comes from the article. I haven't checked it out myself otherwise. Kablooie Jul 2013 #48

Figured that. Someone already posted this above: jmg257 Jul 2013 #63

Prosecution and Defense spent a full day arguing over the jury instructions. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #35

No, the prosecution tried to get that in the instructions. X_Digger Jul 2013 #66

Prosecution can't require ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #68

So what you are explaining is that Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #79

What is and isn't included in jury instructions are argued by both sides. X_Digger Jul 2013 #86

Not at all ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #99

I am just really surprised that something codified Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #188

She also garbled on about Stand Your Ground. mzmolly Jul 2013 #36

Had nothing to do with the stand your ground statute. Morganfleeman Jul 2013 #42

SYG was used by Zimmerman at the beginning to attempt to avoid prosecution. Kablooie Jul 2013 #49

SYG law was included in the jury instructions rollin74 Jul 2013 #81

the so-called stand your ground statute Florida 776.013(3) was read word-for-word to the jury rollin74 Jul 2013 #74

Link? mzmolly Jul 2013 #135

Actual Florida Code wercal Jul 2013 #52

not sure what difference that makes hfojvt Jul 2013 #53

That would be for the Jury to decide. The fact it was decided by the judge doesn't seem appropriate. Kablooie Jul 2013 #69

The judge is ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #85

The judge was wrong John2 Jul 2013 #136

It would be for the jury to decide only if the prosecution had made an attempt to show it. onenote Jul 2013 #141

Much like many DUers will always be convinced he was ethically right to shoot an unarmed man, LanternWaste Jul 2013 #93

I don't know how John2 Jul 2013 #120

Only if you can prove that the Jets don't suck. meaculpa2011 Jul 2013 #123

This is what I've been trying to tell people. It was the judge who commanded that Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #54

I don't think it was the prosecution's entire case. onenote Jul 2013 #147

I don't think you explained very well. The prosecution seemed to be arguing Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #158

If that is what the prosecution was arguing then they deserved to lose the motion onenote Jul 2013 #168

Maybe they did deserved to lose, but Zimmerman deserves to be behind bars. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #171

Hopefully Holder/DoJ will ride into town on this horse? 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #59

The DOJ might be able to bring civil rights violation charges or a hate crime charge. totodeinhere Jul 2013 #125

Why can't the prosecution file an appeal, to FL Supremes? 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #132

The law does not allow the appeal of a not guilty verdict. That verdict is final totodeinhere Jul 2013 #140

Oops. nt 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #143

After reading that link, I recall that exact moment when the Judge said that Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #64

I hope the Federal investigation will sort this out. Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #67

Interesting, but if what she's referring to is section 776.041 of defense law, then she is making.. JVS Jul 2013 #70

Stop trying John2 Jul 2013 #91

Who is right: Burke's article, the blog she links to, or the FL website where the law is written? JVS Jul 2013 #101

I read the John2 Jul 2013 #106

You have not correctly described the standard for what it would take for Zimmerman to have been onenote Jul 2013 #150

I thought I followed the trial pretty closely... Bay Boy Jul 2013 #200

We can't know the details TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #221

It's obvious to all ( I hope) Bay Boy Jul 2013 #237

Not according to Rachel or common sense TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #238

Why assume that? sofa king Jul 2013 #241

That's the first I've heard of the GPS data... Bay Boy Jul 2013 #242

GPS probably cannot be shut off, either. sofa king Jul 2013 #243

It could have been lost Bay Boy Jul 2013 #244

Highly unlikely. sofa king Jul 2013 #245

Who are they protecting? Bay Boy Jul 2013 #246

They protected a judge's son. sofa king Jul 2013 #255

Oh come on... Bay Boy Jul 2013 #256

Unless he ain't. sofa king Jul 2013 #257

So you think this 'meter maid' was part of Bay Boy Jul 2013 #258

And yet everything broke his way. sofa king Jul 2013 #260

AYFKM? live love laugh Jul 2013 #77

By hook or crook, I believe that Martin was lynched. nt ladjf Jul 2013 #80

since the first sentence is a falsehood I quickly lost interest cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #84

My first thought was yellerpup Jul 2013 #89

Does anyone think that the fact that Zimmerman's dad was a judge has anything to do with this? Matariki Jul 2013 #92

I don't know how many times this has to be said, premium Jul 2013 #110

Perhaps you need to clearly define your terms then Matariki Jul 2013 #126

Here is a link. premium Jul 2013 #129

Correct. onenote Jul 2013 #154

Is anyone else disturbed by the number of DUers who claim to know enough about this case onenote Jul 2013 #153

I'm disturbed by the lack of awareness of how racism makes injustice like this possible Matariki Jul 2013 #190

I always thought something must be missing AndyA Jul 2013 #94

I think that is the bottom line. To me it does not matter glinda Jul 2013 #203

This message was self-deleted by its author BainsBane Jul 2013 #95

Are judges appointed or voted for in Florida? avebury Jul 2013 #97

It varies, but this one is in an elected position. Her term is up 2019. Long wait. n/t whopis01 Jul 2013 #142

When the rule of law is a joke... sofa king Jul 2013 #104

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #218

I am clearly being inflammatory above.... sofa king Jul 2013 #222

I Have Posted Elsewhere DallasNE Jul 2013 #111

Why is it so hard to picture the State wanted to let him go? Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #112

^^^^^THIS Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #248

Everyone of John2 Jul 2013 #116

I'm not so sure it was entirely the judge's fault Major Nikon Jul 2013 #128

Thom Hartman is addressing this on his show right now. nt rdharma Jul 2013 #131

YES! and doing a GREAT job. syg WAS... WAS involved in the Jury instructions!! uponit7771 Jul 2013 #137

Yes he is, premium Jul 2013 #145

The feds'll put a note in her file. sofa king Jul 2013 #239

This message was self-deleted by its author Lint Head Jul 2013 #148

You seriously don't understand the law. Seriously. onenote Jul 2013 #155

No he can't. premium Jul 2013 #165

But the Dept of Justice CAN (and hopefully WILL SOON)... bvar22 Jul 2013 #209

The DoJ would then have to dispute it's own FBI investigation. premium Jul 2013 #212

Sounds like the whole case vankuria Jul 2013 #156

If this is correct, a judge in Florida needs to be disbarred. perdita9 Jul 2013 #163

That clause is misleading taken out of context... PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #179

I think we should all take heed.... defacto7 Jul 2013 #182

That is what the NRA wanted. "Street justice/citizen cops". glinda Jul 2013 #204

That is Sickening. Justice4Trayvon didn't have a chance Cha Jul 2013 #187

Can't believe this person is supposed to be a law professor. dkf Jul 2013 #189

There was something 'funny' about this whole trial. matthews Jul 2013 #193

Yes...it was "fiction" and "advertising" broadcasted on Major Networks. glinda Jul 2013 #205

This message was self-deleted by its author davidn3600 Jul 2013 #198

Agreed. If ever there was a case of provocation, this was it. geckosfeet Jul 2013 #210

I doubt that it made that much of a difference customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #214

When the judge allowed a minimal amount of weed in Trayvon's system to be introduced in indepat Jul 2013 #215

Its just the law... The Prosecution can't claim that Zimmerman's legal actions were provocation Taitertots Jul 2013 #216

CROOKED blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #219

I'm glad someone posted this davidpdx Jul 2013 #220

Are you kidding me? truedelphi Jul 2013 #224

That trial was a sick joke. NealK Jul 2013 #225

That's really fucked up. Judge cherry picks the law for the defendant. gtar100 Jul 2013 #227

A lot of judges, they just plain suck at their job. Enthusiast Jul 2013 #228

But was that point EVER brought out by the prosecution? AngryOldDem Jul 2013 #229

Not that it will make a difference to the close minded among us, but Soundman Jul 2013 #230

Hi MichaelKelley Jul 2013 #231

It wouldn't matter anyway Gman Jul 2013 #232

HERE IS THE ACTION STEP - IMPEACH the JUDGE for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct Tigress DEM Jul 2013 #234

He? At least you should know something about the trial before posting. LisaL Jul 2013 #236

Yeah, I saw "Nelson" and I thought male. I don't watch TV. Tigress DEM Jul 2013 #250

She had me fooled apples and oranges Jul 2013 #240

Fuck Florida. Zoeisright Jul 2013 #259